Search for: "Bare v. Bare"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 4,448
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2022, 3:35 pm
Riley v Murray, then, sits uncomfortably with the Court of Appeal’s decision in Miller v College of Policing [2021] EWCA Civ 1926, which was handed down on the same day. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 9:39 am
" The case of Edwards v. [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 6:41 am
The contract they struck with the R-J didn't transfer the whole copyright, a judge found; it merely transferred a "bare right to sue," which is not allowable under a legal precedent called Silvers v. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
National Security Archive v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 5:42 am
One such case is Jacobs v. [read post]
15 Feb 2009, 2:39 am
Both observed that DOMA is constitutionally infirm to the extent that it reflects a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group, an interest deemed impermissible in Romer v. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 2:33 pm
In EBS Automotive v Illinois Tool Works (S.D. [read post]
5 Jun 2009, 1:04 am
Judge Baer's opinion in Capitol Records, LLC v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 3:32 am
This movie is for the die-hard Star Wars people who know all about the clone wars even though they were barely mentioned in Episode III. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 5:27 am
In Elsass v. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 1:06 pm
(People v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 3:54 pm
The opinion is here: United States v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 11:55 am
" For entire case see Tracy Joint Unified School District v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 6:09 am
Our Supreme Court ruled in Cardinal Realty Investors, LLC v. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 9:21 pm
In Milavetz v. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:44 pm
Co. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 11:24 am
(Citations omitted)Because the lower court did not have the benefit of the Tellabs decision, the appellate panel vacated the order and remanded the case for further review in light of recent case law.South Ferry LP v. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 5:49 am
The plaintiffs were harmed prior to 1993.Even though the current version of the statute would indicate that a trustee of a nominee trust could be held liable, the Court held that the definition of "owner" should "not be read out of context and employed to impose liability on one who is effectively an agent for a principal; who possesses "only the barest incidents of ownership," Morrison v. [read post]
